Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a verdict, issues found, and suggested improvements, and mentions the on-chain certificate for approved outputs. It does not disclose potential costs, delays, or failure modes, but for a review tool it provides reasonable transparency about what the user gets.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, tightly packed with relevant information: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No filler or repetition. Each sentence contributes meaning, making it an ideal length for a tool description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a human review tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage timing, and return value. It could benefit from noting that human review may introduce latency or require payment, but the description is otherwise complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by clarifying what the reviewer evaluates (hallucinations, factual errors, weak parts, domain mistakes) and that content can be text or a URL. However, the schema already defines the parameters well, and the description does not add significant syntax or format details beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reviews AI-generated content across multiple media types, with a specific verb ('review') and resource ('AI-generated content'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like review_code and review_plan by focusing on content (text, images, videos, etc.) and by mentioning the on-chain certificate. This provides strong differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to call the tool: 'before publishing, before forwarding to another agent, or before acting on the content.' This gives clear context for usage. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.